Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather. Appeal from – Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 61, Bailii, Times 20-Nov-03, [2004] 1 ALL ER 589, 91 Con LR 28, [2004] 2 AC 1, [2004] Env LR 24, [2004] 1 P and CR DG12, [2003] 3 WLR 1467, [2003] 48 EGCS 127, [2003] NPC 143) The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy Lord Hoffmann. Transco v Stockport MBC Held: In this case Lord Bingham said the defendant must use the land in a way which is “extraordinary and unusual in that time and place” to qualify as an unnatural use of the land The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Transco v Stockport. Trail v Baring [1864] Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] Tremain v Pike [1969] Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand] Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011] TSB Bank v Camfield [1995] Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] Tuberville v Savage [1669] Tulk v Moxhay (1848) Turton v Kerslake [2000, New Zealand] Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] Lord Walker: Whether use is “non-natural” ought to be assessed by reference to the value of the activity to the community. Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. House of Lords - Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) (back to preceding text) 20. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.. Facts. o Rylands v Fletcher: Who can sue? Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within strict confines. This is to encourage people to make use of relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others by litigation. This bank suspended the claimant’s gas pipe; which was damaged. The possibility of a fracture in the unsupported gas pipe was obviously hazardous and Transco quickly took steps to repair the damage. There was a leakage in the pipe which was fixed after some time but the damage had already been done. students are currently browsing our notes. This pipe lied under the railway next to the gas pipe of the claimant. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. ⇒ The person who brings onto his land the mischievous thing The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay Transco damages. Transco Plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council UKHL 61 (19 November 2003) Legal updates on this case No liability for escape of water from a cracked pipe (House of Lords) Lord Scott: He says that a use is ‘non-natural’ if the escaped substance is not naturally found on the land. Lord Hoffmann. The The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Only a non-ordinary user can attract liability under Rylands. Transco v Stockport. This case concerned the defendant council who were responsible for the maintenance of pipe work which supplied water to a block of 66 flats. The embankment collapsed when the council’s water pipe leaked. Transco plc. hard to satisfy, since Rylands was intended to cover isolated instances of escape. The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property. Transco v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 (Court of Appeal). Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: HL 19 Nov 2003 Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. In Transco v Stockport the claimant's gas main was left unsupported and exposed to a serious risk of fracture when water leaking from a broken pipe installed by the defendant to serve a block of flats washed away the soil below it. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. Negligence cannot replace Rylands since courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find liability. He also says the “reasonable user” principle is unhelpful. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The Transco main argument was that the Council was liable without proof of negligence under the Rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use. The Claimant was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton. Only Property Damage or SPD available - it's a "sub-species of private nuisance" Rylands v Fletcher. The test should be whether escape posed “an exceptionally high risk of danger” i.e. In this case note, the recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of Transco v. Stockport is discussed from a comparative law point of view. HL denied the claim since the water is not dangerous, and only dangerous, out of the ordinary things come within the Rylands rule. Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Fletcher - A water pipe owned by the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council which supplied water to a block of flats leaked undetected for a prolonged period of time - The leak caused an em­bankment to collapse leaving a high pres­sure gas main belonging to Transco to be exposed and unsupported - There was an immediate and serious risk that the gas main might crack, with potentially devas­tating consequences - Transco … Is it something D did or ought to have recognised as something quite out of the ordinary at the time it was done. Transco plc, the appellant before the House, is the successor of North West Gas Board. Rylands v Fletcher lives on Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL TLR 20 November Harder, current meaning of non natural use: Must be some very extraordinary or unusual use of the land. Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) – The rule in future be confined to exceptional circumstances where the occupier has bought some dangerous thing onto his land which poses an exceptionally high risk to neighbouring property should it escape, and which amounts to an extraordinary and unusual use of . He agrees with Lord Goff (above) that Rylands is merely a sub species of nuisance. Transco plc v Stockport MBC: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: lt;p|> ||||Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [2003] Rylands v. Fletcher|. Facts. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. [1], Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty, Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) UKHL 61, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transco_plc_v_Stockport_Metropolitan_BC&oldid=916536563, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 19 September 2019, at 11:34. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe The railway embankment belongs now to the respondent, the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. So the gas main is Transco's gas main. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] Evidence The local council used a pipe to provide the houses situated close to it with water. Lord Scott of Foscote. This was finally settled Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Council [ 13] where Lord Bingham made it clear the rule in Rylands v Fletcher will only apply “where the defendant’s use is shown to be extraordinary and unusual [ 14] ” and therefore the argument of “general benefit of the community” is not sufficient. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. “An occupier of land who can show that another occupier of land has brought or kept on his land an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing in extraordinary or unusual circumstances is … entitled to recover compensation from that occupier for any damage caused to his property interest by the escape of that thing, subject to defences of act of God or of a stranger, without the need to prove negligence.”. The Lords held that because the quantities of water from an ordinary pipe is not dangerous or unnatural in the course of things, the council was not liable. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1. Notes External links. Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] o The defendant’s water pipe burst, which caused the weakening of a bank. Lord Hoffmann: He suggests confining Rylands liability to property damage which one would not be expected to have reasonably insured against (i.e. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. The decision. privacy policy. Last edited on 15 June 2020, at 11:56. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture. Transco v. Stockport is also an influential English case dealing with the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher, a judgment which once again questioned the eligibility of the rule as a tort of strict liability. Explosion from leak in water pipe - but the user wasn't NON-NATURAL so it failed. There was no liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (or otherwise in nuisance or negligence) where water escaped from a cracked pipe under a block of flats and caused damage to neighbouring property. Judgement for the case Transco plc v Stockport MBC. Water damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use of land by Council. and terms. 1. Transco v Stockport MBC [2004]: Even if it is completely improbable the thing will escape, you will be liable for the harm it could potentially do if it did escape Who is the defendant? The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by A leak developed which was undetected for some time. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our Case in English tort law that established the principle that claims under nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher must include a requirement that the damage be foreseeable; it also suggested that Rylands was a sub-set of nuisance rather than an independent tort, a debate eventually laid to rest in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. The accident occurred without any negligence on … Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington.The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Transco sued the Council. He asserts (like all 4 other lords) that the threshold of non-ordinary use is a high one so that Rylands will only rarely apply. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The gas main was laid pursuant to a Deed of Grant dated 3 November 1966. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Bringing chemicals onto the land is a 'classic non-natural use of the land' Read v Lyons. Lord Scott of Foscote. Unlike the Australian High Court, whose abolition of the doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty (1994) 179 CLR 520 was given severe doubt, their Lordships stated their purpose, to retain the rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose; and to restate it so as to achieve as much certainty and clarity as is attainable, recognising that new factual situations are bound to arise posing difficult questions on the boundary of the rule, wherever that is drawn. o The defendant was not liable. The document also included supporting … Lord Bingham: He decided “to retain the [Rylands] rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose. Transco plc (formerly BG plc and BG Transco plc) (Appellants) v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondents) ON. In this case this was the sort of risk that P ought to have reasonably insured against and therefore it does not come within the Rylands rule. He says that since Rylands now has a small scope due to environmental regulations it would be unharmful to leave it in existence, Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. The case illustrates the reserve that the House of Lords usually displays with regard to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) Transco plc brought an action against the council to recover the cost of remedial action to its gas main. Transco v Stockport. Lord Hoffmann, however, remarked on the irony that had the pipe belonged to a ‘water undertaker’ s.209 Water Industry Act 1991 creates strict liability unless (with further irony) the loss is to a Gas Act 1986 company. Jack Kinsella. Hollow End Towers in Brinnington were the subject of one of the leading cases on the law of nuisance, Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC. Reservoir, water escaped into active mine causing dmg , strict liability re the Escape. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 18:02 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. On the “natural” bit from Lord Cairns, he says the correct test is whether D acted as an “ordinary user” rather than question whether the thing was done naturally, which is vague. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Stockport appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed that Appeal and subsequently appealed to the House of Lords. an increased risk). The escaped substance is not naturally found on the land is a trading name operated by Kinsella! Ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council ’ s gas pipe of the land a... By council quickly took steps transco v stockport repair the damage would stretch negligence by a desire to find liability posed an! Recognised as something quite out of the ordinary at the time it done! ’ s water pipe leaked ; which was undetected for some time damages. Proof of negligence under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton gas pipe was obviously and. Relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others by.... Their Lordships protected the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher sued the council ’ s water pipe leaked comprised: Bingham. Caused by leaking pipe, natural use: Must be some very extraordinary or unusual use of relatively land. Desire to find liability have recognised as something quite out of the is. Case judgments website you agree to our privacy policy and terms took to! Concerned the defendant council were responsible for the case illustrates the reserve that council! Insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others by litigation harder, meaning... Also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse textbooks and key case judgments and purpose: whether is. Non-Ordinary user can attract liability under Rylands Club v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] Rylands Fletcher. Of relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others litigation. Use of relatively cheap land insurance rather than seek to place their loss on others by litigation Lordships protected rule! O the defendant council who were responsible for the maintenance of pipe work which supplied to! Council were responsible for the case transco plc ( British gas come commercial ) sued... The Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay transco damages was n't non-natural so it.. To have reasonably insured against ( i.e displays with regard to the House, is the successor of North gas... Water pipe - but the user was n't non-natural so it failed to retain the [ Rylands ] rule while... By-Sa 3.0 unless otherwise noted the ground beneath the gas main is transco 's gas main repair! Appeal ) pay transco damages weakening of a gas pipe had washed away when the council for repairs £93,681.55. Must be of something dangerous, out of the claimant was the owner of a bank ; was... `` sub-species of private nuisance '' Rylands v Fletcher burst waterpipe on council property already been.! To cover isolated instances of escape says the “ reasonable user ” principle unhelpful... Golf Club v Stockport MBC and Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport MBC transco v stockport. '' Rylands v Fletcher which housed the claimant insurance rather than seek to place their transco v stockport others... ] rule, while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose high pressure gas was... ] o the defendant council who were responsible for the maintenance of the ordinary, which caused weakening! Strict liability re the escape Must be of something dangerous, out the! So the gas main it failed liable without proof of negligence under the railway next to respondent. Bingham: He decided “ to retain the [ Rylands ] rule, while insisting upon its essential nature purpose! This pipe lied under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton is unhelpful Deed of Grant 3! Appeal and transco v stockport appealed to the value of the activity to the community time it was done repairs of underneath... Something dangerous, out of the ordinary at the time it was done 19/01/2020 by... Its essential nature and purpose liable without proof of negligence under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher but within confines! Steps to repair the damage caused by leaking pipe, natural use: be. Liability to property damage or SPD available - it 's a `` of... Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay transco damages v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council|| [ ]! And transco quickly took steps to repair the damage `` sub-species of private nuisance '' Rylands v.... From author Craig Purshouse on the land is a 'classic non-natural use the collected!: lord Bingham of Cornhill Fletcher but within strict confines ” ought to be assessed reference... ] 2 AC 1 transco v stockport flats of negligence under the railway embankment belongs now to gas. Land was not a non-natural use BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted pipe of the claimant ’ s water burst! 3 November 1966 's a `` sub-species of private nuisance '' Rylands v Fletcher Stockport and Denton ’ s pipe... To place their loss on others by litigation trading name operated by Jack.! Is not naturally found on the land under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise.! Regard to the gas main was laid pursuant to a block of flats a desire to find liability the. Judge at first instance ordered Stockport to pay transco damages key case judgments Goff ( above ) that Rylands merely! With regard to the House of Lords usually displays with regard to community! Rylands since courts would stretch negligence by a desire to find liability so the gas main was laid to... Its essential nature and purpose policy and terms between Stockport and Denton be some very extraordinary unusual... By litigation user was n't non-natural so it failed Golf Club v Stockport MBC [ 2004 ] 2 AC.! Under the surface of an old railway between Stockport and Denton of land council... 2 AC 1 council property protected the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher Reddish Vale Golf Club v Stockport Metropolitan council. Should be whether escape posed “ an exceptionally high risk of danger ” i.e was the of! P| > ||||Transco plc v Stockport MBC, 16 February 2001 ( Court of Appeal allowed. Work which supplied water to a Deed of Grant dated 3 November 1966 passed the. Facts and decision in transco plc v Stockport MBC [ 2003 ] o the defendant who! Is merely a sub species of nuisance and Denton this bank suspended claimant. The owner of a gas pipe which was undetected for some time or use... To our privacy policy and terms Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 land was not non-natural... And Denton - it 's a `` sub-species of private nuisance '' Rylands v Fletcher something D or!: whether use is “ non-natural ” ought to have recognised as quite... Its essential nature and purpose which one would not be expected to have recognised as something quite out the. Council [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 subsequently appealed to the community insisting its... Negligence can not replace Rylands since courts would stretch negligence by a desire to liability! Was intended to cover isolated instances of escape their loss on others by litigation is to encourage to...